Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_04.28.2022Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission of the City of Georgetown April 28, 2022 at 6:00 P M at 510 W. 9th Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 Council and Courts B uilding T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay Texas at 711. This Age nda was re vise d at 4:30 pm on April 25, 2022 to r evise an ite m. P ublic Wishing to Address the B oard O n a s ubjec t that is posted on this agenda: P lease fill out a speaker regis tration form whic h can be found at the Board meeting. C learly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and pres ent it to the S taff Liais on, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be c alled forward to speak when the Board cons iders that item. O n a s ubjec t not posted on the agenda: P ersons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written request with the S taff Liais on no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. T he reques t must include the s peaker's name and the spec ific topic to be addres s ed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public . F or Board Liaison c ontact information, pleas e logon to http://government.georgetown.org/c ategory/boards -commissions /. A At the time of posting, no pers ons had s igned up to address the Board. L egislativ e Regular Agenda B C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the April 14, 2022, regular meeting of the Historic and Arc hitectural C ommittee - Kimberly S penc er, Development Administration P rogram Manager C C onceptual R eview of a reques t for a C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s (C O A) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade; a 6' 10" height modification to the required 15' maximum height at the side s etbac k to allow a height of 23' 8" at the side (eas t) property line; a 4’ encroac hment into the required 20’ front s etbac k to allow the addition of stairs 16' from the front (south) property line at the property located at 309 E. 11th S treet, bearing the legal desc ription 0.1376 acres, being part of lots 3 and 4, Bloc k 20, G lassc ock Addition (2022-10-C O A) -- Nat Waggoner, As s t. P lanning Dir - Long R ange. D P ublic Hearing and possible action on a reques t for a C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s (C O A) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an exis ting s treet fac ing faç ade, a 7’ 6 1/2" enc roachment into the required 10’-0” rear setback to allow a detac hed garage 2' 5 1/2"inc hes from the rear (wes t) property line; a 21' enc roachment into the required 25' s treet fac ing garage s treet setback to allow a garage 4' from the side s treet (south) property line at the property located at 1256 S . Main S treet, bearing the legal desc ription 0.3306 acres, being part of Block C , Morrow Addition (2022-12-C O A) -- Nat Waggoner, Asst. P lanning Dir - Long R ange. Page 1 of 167 E Disc ussion and possible action to appoint a s ubc ommittee of the HAR C for review of projec ts - Nat Waggoner, Asst. P lanning Dir. - Long R ange F Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . -Nat Waggoner, As s t. P lanning Dir. - Long R ange Adjournment Ce rtificate of Posting I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2022, at __________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary Page 2 of 167 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review April 28, 2022 S UB J E C T: C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the April 14, 2022, regular meeting of the His toric and Architec tural C ommittee - Kimberly S pencer, Development Adminis tration P rogram Manager IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: .N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Mirna G arcia, P rogram Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Meeting Minutes Cover Memo Page 3 of 167 Page 1 of4 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 Members Present: Michael Walton, Chair; Linda C. Burns, Vice-Chair; Lawrence Romero; Karalei Nunn; Tom W. Davis, Alton Martin. Not in Attendance: Jennifer Powell, Pierce P. Macguire, and Williams “Jud” Harris. Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Assistant Director; Meredith Johnson Kimberly Spencer, Dev. Admin. Program Manager Meeting called to order by Chair Walton at 6:02 pm. Public Wishing to Address the Board On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found at the Board meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and present it to the Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Board considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. The request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public. For Board Liaison contact information, please log on to http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/. A. At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to address the Board. Legislative Regular Agenda B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the March 24, 2022, regular meeting of the Historic and Architectural Committee - Cindy Medrano, Administrative Assistant Motion to approve minutes by Commissioner Romero seconded by Commissioner Martin Approved unanimously 6-0 Page 4 of 167 Page 2 of4 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 C. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the demolition of a low priority detached garage at the property located at 1256 S. Main Street, bearing the legal description 0.3306 acres, being part of Block C, Morrow Addition (2022-12-COA) -- Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir - Long Range. Staff report presented by Sofia Nelson. Nelson shared that the garage under consideration is a low priority structure, rectangular in shape without an identified style. Nelson shared the definition of a low priority structure. The garage is situated on a lot with a high priority residence, known as the Laura Wileman House on the 2016 Historic Resource Survey. The garage fronts W 16th Street while the home faces S Main St. and the relationship between the house and the garage, however, is utilitarian as the garage shares very few features with the house. The Historic Resource Survey lists a build date of 1916; however, the 1916 and 1925 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps show that the garage was originally to the north side of the house. The current garage does not appear on the 1940 correction to the 1925 map; thus, it is reasonable that the garage was not built until after 1940 – unless it was moved around from the north side, however the current garage seems larger than the garage shown on the Sanborn maps. The garage is placed to the rear of the home, fitting in between trees and eaves. The garage was constructed with wood framing and 2x4 studs. The exterior is a horizontal wood siding, painted white. The roof is a front-gable that opens to 16th Street with an asphalt shingled roof Staff found that the garage is in relatively poor condition, despite the owner’s attempts to patch and repair. At the time of construction, a foundation was not poured to prevent soil contact with the siding, so the siding has seen over 100 years of water penetration. The primary damage is found along the exterior of the garage, where the siding meets the ground and has deteriorated from moisture. The roof is sagging despite attempts to correct its failing components. Finally, the primary feature that is shared between the garage and the house are the garage’s east-facing windows. These windows are similar in style to the windows on the house and may have been incorporated as left-over material. These windows should be salvaged and potentially incorporated into a future garage. The applicant has described the ways that the structure does not meet current living standards. Staff has determined that these issues are a result of the garage was constructed with direct contact with soil and water penetration. Staff /Demo Sub Committee’s recommendation is to approve this demolition for the reasons set forth. We have found that the request is has met the approval criteria. The applicant has also filed this demo request under a loss of significance, noting that the building is no longer historical or architecturally significant. The applicant has established that the structure has undergone significant and irreversible changes and that the changes to this build were not caused, directly or indirectly by the owner. Demo of this building will not cause an adverse effect on the historic district given that it is a low priority accessory dwelling. Nelson noted the consideration of a conceptual design in the agenda for the garage Page 5 of 167 Page 3 of4 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 replacement. Applicant came to the podium and shared their love of the house and historic nature of the neighborhood. Shared that everything they do they wish to do it with a lens of maintaining the historical and integrity the building. He continued to share that there is lead paint flaking from the garage and expressed concern re: his young children. Also, due to the comprising nature of the structure cars are not parked in the garage. Garage also makes wood to soil contact and floods easily in significant rain events. Roof is caving and 2x4 studs that are not structurally adequate. No questions from commissioners. Chair Walton opened the Public Hearing and closed it with no speakers coming forth. Motion to approve item as stated by Chair Davis seconded by Commissioner Lawrence Approved unanimously 6-0 At this time, Waggoner requested to bring Item I up in the agenda since Item C was approved in relation to the conceptual review. Chair Walton agreed. D. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a new fence, railing or wall that is inconsistent with the overlay district's characteristics and applicable guidelines for the property at 1415 Ash Street, bearing the legal description 0.489 acres, Block 8 (SW/PT), Hughes Addition (2022-13-COA) -- Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range Staff report presented by Meredith Johnson. Johnson shared the historical progress of the property in the 1916 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, the 1964, 1974 aerial maps, and the 1984, and 2016 HRS photos. The 2016 HSR identifies the structure as a center passage home with a one-and-a-half-story wood-frame asymmetrical plan with a gable roof and composition shingles. The roof includes broad eaves with jig-sawn brackets. The front elevation faces west, and the exterior includes a brick chimney. The property located at 1415 Ash Street is a high priority structure which was accepted into the National Register of Historic Places in 1987 for significance in local architecture and politics/government. The home is one of two known architect-designed pre1935 dwellings in Georgetown. The fence is 3’ 6” in total height and consists of an 8" brick base with 30" powder coated custom wrought iron pickets and 7 16"x16" brick posts, to match the existing chimney and anchor the corners. The applicant is proposing the fence to be located at the front property line (west) and beyond the (south) side street property line approximately 18” from the sidewalk on 15th St. Currently the property line is 4 feet off sidewalk). The applicant is concurrently seeking a License to Encroach on public right of way through separate application and agrees to the removal of the fence, if the area is needed for future utilities, at their expense. Page 6 of 167 Page 4 of4 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 In their Letter of Intent, the applicant states, placement of the fence beyond the street side (south) property line along 15th Street is to avoid the root system of a pecan tree and to match the distance from the sidewalk to the fence (18”) as the fence on Ash St. According to the applicant, this will create a balanced design, and optimize curb appeal. The applicant is requesting a height of 3’6” to account for the airiness of a thin wrought iron fence, adding another 6” wouldn’t make the fence look heavy, busy, or walled off, to provide privacy and additional ornamentation along the front property line. The proposed fence design is similar in materials and height to other properties in the immediate area and within the Old Town District including the immediately adjacent property at 1503 Ash. Both Johnson and the applicant spoke to the proposed fence and how it will use brick, giving it a polished look that will match the brick chimney and used for planting boarders throughout the front yard. The iron work is custom for the proposed fence. The iron is powder coated black with dulled tips on each end. The iron features a club as an ornamental detail. At its highest point, the fence will measure 3’6”. The wrought iron component will measure 30” and will be placed on top of a brick base measuring 8” tall. There is about a 2-4” gap between the base of the iron and the top of the brick. The total height of the wrought iron and brick base component will be 3’6”. The brick base will lead into seven (7) brick posts that will measure 18” by 18” and will be 3’ 6” tall. The proposed fence would screen the view of the house, but only slightly as the proposed fence is about 95-98% transparent. The fence does not affect the integrity of the home as it is removable without causing harm to the structure. The brick columns support the original chimney which is a notable architectural feature. Staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 2 of the 2 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 as detailed in the presented Applicable Design Guidelines. The proposed fence meets the requirements for transparency. The front yard fence does not exceed 4’. Additionally, the design guideline for fence materials calls for masonry walls, ornamental walls, or wood picket fences. The proposed fence does have ornamental iron that is more delicate than wood pickets. The masonry base is 8” tall. The proposed fence will partially extend to the side yard and does not exceed 4’ in height. Staff reviewed the application and deemed it complete. The Unified Development Code (UDC) identifies that residential properties in the Old Town Overlay District are required to have a 3’ tall and 50% transparent fence in the front yard and side street setback, and the proposed fence is 3’6”’. The applicant achieves the transparency requirement. The requested height is consistent with the intent of the UDC regulation. Proposed fence complies with the applicable SOI standards; New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize Page 7 of 167 Page 5 of4 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Additionally, that new additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. The request complies with the guidelines for transparency, intent for height, materials, and general location. The subject property is high historic integrity. The height and transparency of the proposed fence supports the integrity of the structure. The materials recommended by the Design Guidelines d create a high degree of design compatibility for this structure. Within the Old Town overlay fences exists in a variety of heights, styles, and materials. The overall character, and the character of the near vicinity of the subject property, is generally lower height, transparent fences, including wood pickets and decorative iron fencing along street property lines. The height and transparency of the proposed fence are compatible with the general character of the district. Based on the findings presented staff recommends approval of the request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a new fence, 3’6” in height for the property located at 1415 Ash St., bearing the legal description of 0.489 acres, Block 8 (SW/PT), Hughes Addition. Chair Walton opens the floor for questions. Commissioner Romero confirms that if they approve the COA tonight, they will not have any review of the proposed materials and final renderings. Johnson affirms this is correct. Commissioner Romero has concern Adrian Duncan, applicant approached to address Commissioner Romero’s concerns re: the materials. Duncan confirms that the brick will match the existing brick on the chimney of the home. Iron work will mimic presented renderings as close as they can get it. Applicant confirms Northwest Ironworks as the ironwork company he is using. Northwest Ironworks will be creating the ironwork and applicant will be installing. Burns confirms that proposed fencing will look like fence across the street. Applicant shared that they would have a limestone cap, similarly to the fencing across the street. Burns is concerned about the phrasing similar at best she is ready to accept with conditions once the staff can confirm final renderings and materials. Sofia recommends possible postponement if they need further consideration. Burns addresses compliance list re: height requirements. Nat addresses that the new design guidelines are 4 ft. (the old design guidelines is 3ft.) Page 8 of 167 Page 6 of4 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 Chair Walton opened the Public Hearing and closed it with no speakers coming forth. Motion to postpone item as stated until further detail on the materials of fence (brick, iron details and caps) can be provided, by Commissioner Romero seconded by Commissioner Davis Approved unanimously 6-0 E. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the replacement of a historic feature with a non-historic feature for the property located at 1206 S. College Street, bearing the legal description .166 acres, Block 3 (E/PT), Hughes Addition (2022-15-COA) -- Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range Staff report presented by Nat Waggoner. Waggoner shared that all 19 windows for the home are single pane, double hung wood windows. 6 of the windows measure approximately 30” x 65”, three small windows measure about 29” x 44”. The home features two sets of double hung windows on the College Street-facing (east) façade (4 total windows). The window sashes are made of wood and painted a deep red color to match the eaves of the house. The frames are also constructed of wood and are painted white to match trim and architectural features throughout the exterior. The windows are simple and include two panes each, a top and a bottom. This style was popular in the early 20th Century. The applicant has requested a COA to replace the existing 19 wood-frame, double hung windows with vinyl, double hung windows. The location of the windows will not change. The windows under consideration are character-defining as they are located at the front of the house and face College Street. The existing windows have single lights on the top and the bottom. The proposed windows are nearly identical in form, though they differ in materials and color. The existing windows are wood that has been painted red to offset the brown exterior and match the trim around the eaves. In their supporting materials, the applicant states that many of the existing windows have cracks, and nearly all the windows are sealed shut for moisture control and weatherization. The applicant would like to install the new windows to not only resolve the weatherization, moisture, and operability, but also to make the home more energy efficient. The proposed windows will match the dimensions of the original windows. The applicant did not include a proposal for repairing rather than replacing the windows. The applicant has, however, attempted minor repairs such as adding weather stripped and caulking the windows to seal out moisture. This is the first recommended step in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for windows. However, the date of construction for the home speaks to a time when the windows would have provided necessary airflow throughout the house, a strategy that moves moisture as well. The additional moisture trapped by the sealed windows has likely expedited the damage to the windows. Finally, the proposed windows do not meet the criteria for materials in Design Guidelines Section 3.5.G.3 which states “Windows should be made of wood or aluminum-clad wood or fiberglass clad wood. The profiles and jamb Page 9 of 167 Page 7 of4 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 conditions shall resemble the original wood windows in detailing and profile thickness.” The proposed windows are not clad, nor do they resemble the original wood windows in detailing. Staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 0 of the 7 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 as presented in the Applicable Design Guidelines portion of the presentation. Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends conditional approval of the request if the applicant replaces the street facing façade windows with those that meet Design Guidelines 3.5.3.G with windows that are either the same or a similar material, and the result will match all visual aspects, including form, color, and workmanship in order to retain the original design of the windows. Chris Sundgren, applicant is present and addressed HARC. He shared concerns re: efficiency. Commissioner Nunn shared that she would approve with the condition that in kind materials are used (wood). Commissioner Martin confirmed that there are 19 windows in total however it is the 4 that are facing the street that are really in questions. Applicant affirmed that is correct. Commissioner Romero shared similar thoughts as Commissioner Nunn, expressing that the material would need to be comparable and meets the guidelines. He shared that the bevel may be intrusive. Commissioner Burns asked about if the applicant has looked into repair. Applicant has not. Chair Walton clarified design of new windows since the pictures in the presentation were not an accurate representation of that the windows look like today. Applicant shared a picture with HARC that showed that detail of the proposed windows and the house as it stands today. Chair Walton opened the Public Hearing and closed it with no speakers coming forth. Liz Weaver, 1221 South Main Street, addressed HARC in opposition of item. Shared that the windows can be repaired, and glass can be replaced. She shared that the applicant could source the glass and the size proposed is very easy to replace. Shared that there are wood frame interior storm windows that look like hanging screens that can stop the wind from coming in. Weaver points out examples in town that have either repaired windows or installed interior storm windows. Chair Walton closed the Public Hearing. Chair Walton expressed concern over the common reason presented when applicants are Page 10 of 167 Page 8 of4 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 requesting demolition are that non-historic materials were used to replace the existing windows and that they do not confirm to the design guidelines. Motion to approve with conditions that replaced windows meet design guideline 3.5.G.3.a. (Windows should be made of wood or aluminum-clad wood or fiberglass clad wood. The profiles and jamb conditions shall resemble the original wood windows in detailing and profile thickness.), by Commissioner Nunn seconded by Commissioner Romero Approved unanimously 6-0 F. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the replacement of historic architectural features with non-historic architectural features at the property located at 509 S. Myrtle Street, bearing the legal description 0.24 acres, Lot 6-6 (PTS), Block 15, Glasscock Addition (2022-16-COA) -- Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range Staff report presented by Nat Waggoner. Waggoner shared that the applicant is requesting to remove and replace the wood siding and vertical board as needed, replace the batten siding, and replace all of the trim. According to the applicant’s Letter of Intent (attached) the siding has seen years of wear and tear from the Texas climate. Wagoneer shared the historical progress of the property in the 1925 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, the 1964, 1974 aerial maps, and the 1984, and 2016 HRS photos. Structure is a medium priority structure, surrounded by high and low priority structures. Waggoner then presented the elevation renderings and reviewed examples of materials. The current condition of the siding cannot be determined as the house has been wrapped in Tyvek for weatherproofing as some of the siding, and all the battens, has already been removed. The remaining siding is original long leaf wooden boards that extend from the skirting to the soffit. The applicant has stated that these pieces that remain are structural to the home. While the loss of the original material will reduce the home’s overall integrity, the new siding will ensure that the look of the home is retained longer, and the new insulation will make the home more livable for contemporary demands. Waggoner presented on materials to be used: Batten: 1”x2.5” hardi to be installed on top of the boards with spacing that will “mimic” the original. Material to match boards. Hardi Trim: 1x4 cm pieces to be installed on corners, below soffits, and around windows and doors. Sills: 2”x6” cedar sill to be installed below windows. Style to match original. Lower Trim: 1x6 cm pieces to be installed between the siding and the skirting. Tyvek Wrap: To be installed over the long leaf boards that will remain on the house for structural purposes. Insulation: To improved climate control inside the house, which previously had very little insulation, will be installed over the wrap. Hardi Boards: 4’x8’ sheets with a cedar mill finish to be installed over the insulation. Staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 1 of the 8 applicable Historic Page 11 of 167 Page 9 of4 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3as detailed below in the Applicable Design Guidelines section below. Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends approval with conditions of the request. 1. The applicant shall ensure that the new siding will match the original siding in dimensions and texture, 2. This project shall include protections to the original material that is to stay in- tact, including but not limited to protection against moisture, insects, and other elements that threaten wood, and 3. The new siding shall match the configuration of the original siding exactly. Applicant was present but did not have anything to add. Chair Walton opened the floor to questions from the commissioners. Commissioner Martin confirmed that trim around the windows are going to mimic or look like the existed windows and baton looked like before. Applicant confirmed that new materials will be the same in style and depth of the current windows. Commissioner Romero addresses if the circular attic vent on the front of the house is going to stay. Applicant confirmed, yes. Commissioner Walton addressed if all exterior materials have been removed. Applicant confirmed that all batts have been removed. Other materials remain and new materials would go on top of old material. Commissioner Nunn asked what the profile for the batons will be. Applicant confirmed it would be the same distance and width that they were before. The spacing would likely be 12” consistently. Nunn clarifies her question re: profile. Applicant clarified that some profiles are rounded, and some are a sharper edge. Chair Walton opened the Public Hearing. Liz Weaver, 1221 South Main Street, addressed HARC. She shared that they are looking to put in 2.5” wide baton whereas the original is 4” wide. Her request is for the batons to be 4” and closely mimic what the home would have looked like before the batons were recently removed. Would also request that the profile mimic the time period. What they have proposed does not. Chair Walton closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Nunn notes that she does not see shape. Chair Walton shows a few pictures that have two different types of shape. Commissioner Romero is hardi board one of the in-kind materials we can approve? Waggoner confirms yes. Page 12 of 167 Page 10 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 Motion to approve with conditions as presented by staff (1. The applicant shall ensure that the new siding will match the original siding in dimensions and texture, 2. This project shall include protections to the original material that is to stay in-tact, including but not limited to protection against moisture, insects, and other elements that threaten wood, and 3. The new siding shall match the configuration of the original siding exactly.) by Commissioner Martin, seconded by Commissioner Nunn Approved unanimously 6-0 G. Conceptual Review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) new residential (infill) construction for the property located at 510 E 7th Street bearing the legal description Lot 1, Block 36, Glasscock Addition (2021-67-COA) -- Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir - Long Range. Meredith Johnson presented the staff report. She shared that the applicant is requesting to construct a new house on a vacant parcel. The new house is proposed to be 2,904 sq. ft. that will contain approximately 2,245 sq. ft. of living space, a 444 sq. ft. attached garage, and 215 sq. ft. of covered patio and porch space. Johnson reminded commission on questions that should be considered: 1. Does the new house comply with the looming guidelines of 3.4.C.3? 2. Does the house relate to the nearby structures in character and form, and size (massing and scale)? 3. Is there additional information HARC would like at the public hearing? 4. What additional information could we bring to you in the next meeting? Johnson shared the historical progress of the property in the 1916 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, the 1964, and 1974 aerial maps. She noted that the lot is surrounded by medium/low and high structures. Johnson proceeds to present on the elevation of the proposed structure, noting roof material, window types, siding material (smooth hardi siding), inset porch, two architectural columns, 16’x7’ garage door, various window sizes proposed (some of which do not meet guidelines 3.5.G.2 for size. Johnson reviews design guidelines. Staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 11 of the 18 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapters 3.4-3.5 as detailed in the presentation on Applicable Design Guidelines. Staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 11 of the 18 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapters 3.4-3.5 as detailed in the presentation on Applicable Design Guidelines. Applicant, Chance Leigh, President of Chance Leigh Custom homes is present and addressed the commission. Leigh notes constraints on lot with the edge of front porch and garage are pushed back as far as they can due to an existing easement that snake through the lot right next to the rear of the home. They can’t enlarge the footprint of the home or encroach into the easement. They found out that the easement is the residents next door that he uses. Since they can’t vacate the easement, they have minimal option for Page 13 of 167 Page 11 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 placement of the garage. Chair Walton clarifies exact location on the map in the presentation on where the easement is located. Clarified that you are allowed to place a driveway or a fence over the easement however you cannot place a structure on the easement. Leigh confirmed they found the pipe underground and water would come through every once and a while. Inquired if the pipe could be relocated but it is not possible. Chair Walton clarifies that there are two lots. Leigh shared that he owns both lots but there is a non-confirming structure on the property line. Commissioner Burns shared that she had concern over design (windows not matching and façade coming across as flat due to the garage placement/aesthetics do not match his proposed in the past). Burns proposed possibly requesting a variance re: the setback lines. Chair Walton agrees with Commissioner Nunn that there may be more opportunity for creativity in design. On the surface it doesn’t look like it fits with in old town. Leigh notes that he is trying to have some dimension in his design. Commissioner Romero asks if it is possible to turn the house around for the front to be on college street. Leigh not an impossibility, just need to approve it with fire and building permits. He notes that the driveway would need to be considered if adjusting the position. H. Conceptual Review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new or adds to an existing street facing for at the property located at 1503 Elm Street, bearing the legal description of .35 acres, Block 10 (W/PT), Hughes Addition, Block 10 (W/PT). (2022-3-COA) – Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir. - Long Range Meredith Johnson presented the staff report. Reminds commissioners of questions in consideration: 1. Does the proposed meet the Design Guideline section 3.4.C.3 for looming? 2. Does the addition meet Design Guidelines 3.5.C concerning massing, scale and form? 3. Does the addition meet Design Guidelines 3.5.K concerning architectural character, mass, scale and materials? 4. Are there additional opportunities to meet Design Guidelines 3.5.K.5- acknowledgement and respect and where appropriate inclusion of architectural features of existing building. 5. Is the breezeway compatible in character and material to meet Design Guideline 3.5.K.3? 6. If any additional information not presented what can we bring to you next time? The applicant is requesting to construct an approximate 2,323.17 sq. ft. two-story addition above the existing garage. A portion of the addition is setback from the primary façade of the existing garage and creates an overhang of approximately 7’ 8”. The addition has a gabled Page 14 of 167 Page 12 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 roof with a height of 25’. The addition is proposed to connect to the primary structure by a 20 ft. breezeway. The garage addition includes 5/16in. x 144in Hardibacker lap siding to match the primary structure. The windows of the proposed addition are a mix of types and sizes, but they are all proposed to be vinyl. The applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition to the existing detached garage. The addition will increase the garage from two to four cars, will be connected to the primary structure via a breezeway, and will add significant living space to the property for the owner’s family. The subject property is a single-story, medium-priority residential structure with 1,863 sq. ft. of interior space and a 761 sq. ft covered porch that wraps around the west and southern facades and include columns with decorative caps supporting the roof. The eaves are deep overhangs and include decorative trim. The primary structure includes double-hung windows with screens. The structure has an estimated construction date of 1916 but does not provide a building style or identified plan, according to the 2016 Historic Resources Survey. The 1916 Sanborn map depicts the primary structure as an L-shaped house with two additions that alter the plan to become its current rectangular shape. There are three outbuildings, 1 of which appears to be the existing garage facing 15th Street. The existing 537 sq. ft. garage facing 16th Street was constructed in 2013 in a similar location to the original garage first depicted in the 1916 Sanborn map. The subject property is located on ½ of Block 10 and is dimensionally a corner lot with three street-facing facades. The proposed addition, connected to the main structure via a 20’ breezeway, is set back from the character-defining façade (Elm Street). The addition is placed appropriately on the lot with the primary structure located toward the center of the lot. The location of the addition maintains the existing pattern of 16th Street between Elm and Ash Streets as there are primary and detached garage structures built at the property lines. The scale of the addition is not compatible with the primary structure as the proposed addition is two story, compared to the single-story primary structure. The primary structure constitutes 2,625 sq. ft. (which includes the 761 sq. ft covered front porch). The addition, including the breezeway, will add a total of 2,523 sq. ft. to the primary structure. The properties to the east are a single-story home and a home with a partial second story. Residences south of the subject property along Elm Street are predominately single-story bungalow-style structures. North of the property, beyond 15th Street, are homes with a variety of stories. Two-story residences north of the subject property with the University Elm National Register District are Victorian and Queen Style homes. The mass associated with the addition is concentrated along the southern and eastern property lines. Along the southern façade, the looming effect will not be as pronounced given the separation of the properties by 16th Street however the façade does include windows that extend beyond the rear of the building south of 16th Street. Windows along the southern and eastern facades are single hung vinyl windows, are twice as tall as they are wide and are the same sill height on each floor and are laid out symmetrical in each bay. Page 15 of 167 Page 13 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 Staff have determined that the proposed project complies with 13 of the 33 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 as detailed in the presentation on Applicable Design Guidelines. In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, staff have determined that the applicant complies with 1 out of 8 of these criteria. Applicant, Randy, and Liza Stroud, addressed the commissioners with a presentation. They purchased the home with the intent to add to the structure to fit their family needs. They met with Briton during the options period when they found the home. She stated that it wasn’t reasonable as presented however if a breezeway was present that it may be considered. Originally were looking at a 3-car addition, however upon looking within the block there were examples of 4 car additions. They are looking to store a boat, thus needing the 4-car garage option. Applicant shared their original desire to have a deck but due to looming they changed their design to remove the covered deck. As far as the 65” windows, they felt that it was not safe given that it was on the second floor. Applicant spoke to the metal ridge to the current home and will be salvaging that feature and include into their addition. They will be expanding from a n 1800 to a 3300 sq ft home. They did an analysis to discover it their request is reasonable. They found that properties that were greater that 1400 sq ft in the area, 16 of the 49 homes had expanded their footprint of the original home to over 3000 sq ft. Applicant has also looked at properties that have garages. Of those properties 31% had garages that were over 1000 sq ft. Commissioner Davis expressed concerns over massing and scale of proposal. The character of the proposed does not fit within the old town neighborhood context. Commissioner Romero expressed similar concerns. Mass is large. Asked if the applicant had considered a one-story. Applicant noted that going to a one story would not meet their garage/storage needs. Applicant further clarified that one of the things that Waggoner had suggested was that they consider one and a half set up instead of a two story with the dormers on the side that face 16th Street. The applicant considered that option but noted that it takes a bit of the square footage out of the bedrooms. Applicant clarifies that he’d be willing to reconsider if that would help address commissioners concerns on mass. Chair Walton concurs with commissioners on size. He notes that the proposed does not resemble an addition but rather another home. He notes that the “addition” is bigger than the current home. Chair notes that there are opportunities given the lot size but would need to be scaled down in terms of mass. Chair also notes that there is also opportunity to increase the level of acknowledgement, respect, and inclusion of architectural features of the existing building of your current house. Commissioner Nunn addresses the stop work order for the other building off of 15th st. Applicant clarifies that there was a bit of a misunderstanding on our tax roster. It shows that as a 600 square foot building, it was it's only 520. He clarifies that they are adding the extra 80 Page 16 of 167 Page 14 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 square feet to allow for a bathroom. Applicant notes that this area will be a play area. Nunn clarifies that taking small features from the original home does not address increasing the level of acknowledgement, respect, and inclusion of architectural features. She also notes that most of the examples that were provided as comparable would likely not be approved with today’s guidelines. Applicant asks if there is a target number in terms of square footage that would be more acceptable? Chair Walton clarifies there is not a particular number its really just the mass and size of it all. Commissioner Martin addresses the looming issues. It just exacerbates the scale of this proposed addition. Applicant notes that they would encounter looming issues regardless of placement. Chair Walton notes that if the applicant takes a different approach to design the looming issues may resolve itself. Waggoner recaps the feedback. Johnson recites feedback questions. Notes scale and massing re: #2 and #3 feedback questions. Notes #4 architectural relationship between the two buildings. Nunn clarifies that the relationship had more to do with scale and massing than with metal trim and roof shapes. Chair Walton also notes that numbers on the exhibits were not legible. He requests they come back with more clarity on those images. Johnson/Waggoner clarifies concern on a breezeway. Chair Walton notes that breezeways do not pose an issue within the guidelines. Waggoner also confirms it moving the mass of that structure to a single story closer to Elm Street is something that this commission would have concerns about with that facade. Chair Walton notes that they would need to see what is proposed in order to speak to that change. Johnson also clarifies that proposed materials will need to be presented as a part of the COA. I. Conceptual Review of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade and an encroachment into the required 25’-0” garage side street setback to allow a new garage at the (south) property line at the property located at 1256 S. Main Street, bearing the legal description 0.3306 acres, being part of Block C, Morrow Addition (2022-12-COA) -- Nat Waggoner, Asst. Planning Dir - Long Range. Staff Report presented by Waggoner. Waggoner clarified the applicants request is to construct a new garage (495 sq. ft.) and a 581 sq. ft. addition with dormers to the rear of the primary structure. In this HARC Conceptual Review he’d like the following to be considered in the feedback questions below: new detached garage addition, new addition that adds to or creates a street facing façade, and the garage street (21’) and rear setback (7’4”) modifications for new garage. Waggoner asked for feedback on the following questions: 1. Are the garage street and rear setback modification appropriate? Page 17 of 167 Page 15 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 2. Does the new addition comply with the looming guidelines of 3.4.C.3? 3. Does the addition relate to the primary structure in character and form, size (massing and scale)? 4. Is there additional information HARC would like at the public hearing? The subject property is 1,857 sq. ft. two story home with a 500 sq. ft. open porch and detached garage. The main structure includes a later addition to the rear of the property. The 2016 Historic Resource Survey identifies this property as a craftsman style home, in a modified L plan, built in 1913 by the Belford Lumber Company. This house is listed as the Laura Wileman House on the 2016 Historic Resource Survey and located in the Belford National Registry district. Wagoneer shared the historical progress of the property in the 1916, 1925 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, the 1964, 1974 aerial maps, and the 1984, and 2016 HRS photos. He shared proposed renderings (aerial depiction, north, south, east, west elevations) showing the rear addition and how the ridge line will tie into the current structure along with proposed materials and paint colors. Additionally, Waggoner shows the proposed garage addition in its proximity to the main structure and the fence line. Waggoner then presents three similar garages with similar setbacks to which the applicant is requesting, within the 16th street vicinity. Chair Walton opened the floor to questions from the commissioners. Commissioner Nunn asked for clarification on the setback being requested. Nat that the applicant is proposing to place the garage 4 ft from the property line which equates the garage encroaching 21 ft into that set back primarily due to them being on the corner with two front facing sides to the home. Commissioner Alton asked if there was any public comment from neighbors. Waggoner clarified that with conceptual reviews it is not required to seek public comment and the this is a voluntary request from the applicant to seek HARCs review of the conceptual plan. Since the applicants will also be presenting this as an item of consideration at the April 28th HARC meeting, notifications for that item have already been sent out and a sign is present on the property as of this meeting (4/14/2022) which will open the item to public comment right now in preparation for the next HARC meeting. Commissioner Burns asked for clarification on if set back concerns for the proposed garage are for both 16th street and for the rear of the property. Waggoner shared that there is a 10ft setback requirement in the rear and the applicant is asking for a modification of a 4 ft rear setback there and a 21 ft setback modification off 16th street. Commissioner Burns and Chair Walton asked clarification on if the proposed garage will be going in the exact place of the approved demolition of the existing garage. Waggoner this would be the case. Chair Walton and Burns requested more information on if the Page 18 of 167 Page 16 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 proposed garaged can be placed on another location in the property. Is the rear of the addition on the setback line? The addition is not encroaching on the set back. When the original garage was built the setbacks were not in place. The new garage will be violating the setbacks we have in place today and the purpose of the request is to modify the setback requirements. Architect Gary Wong approached the podium to clarify. Wong shared that proposed garage will be in exact location of existing garage approved for demolition with some modifications making it shorter (N-S) but wider (E-W). This was done to not only accommodate two cars properly but also to keep the roof line overhang in the rear mirror the front. Wong attempted to relocate the garage however there is a large tree in place where the garage could possibly go. Applicant does not wish to remove the large tree or alter the front facing façade. Chair Walton asked for clarification on if garage could shift 4 ft to the East. Wong clarified that the roof lines would collide in that case. Additionally, they are attempting to keep the 5’2” breezeway walkway in place. Chair Walton addressed the looming guidelines re: the upstairs bedroom addition. Wong clarified that it does respect the footprint of the rear 10 ft. setback. No further questions. J. Updates, Commissioner questions, and comments. - Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Sofia Nelson presented updates. Introduced Kimberly as the Dev. Admin Manager. Noted that we will be hiring role specific to boards and commissions that Kimberly will be supporting. Noted that this will be her last meeting until the end of summer. Tadd Philips will be stepping in on an interim basis next to Meredith and Nat. Addressed the happenings of public comments submitted after posting. Updated that all public comment that is to be reviewed by HARC must be in by Friday at the time of posting. We will add any public comment to our records and inform you of the number we received after posting but we will not be emailing or printing out copies for the dias. The reason for this is to allow for public transparency—if received after agenda has been posted, the public does not have an opportunity to review the comments, there is not adequate time for HARC to review, and additionally not adequate time for the applicant to review and address comments. Case managers will notate in if public comment has come in after posting as a part of their presentation. This will be communicated to the public, that when they do present comment after posting it will need to be presented in person at the HARC meeting. Page 19 of 167 Page 17 Historic and Architectural Review Commission Meeting: April 14, 2022 Chair Walton presented feedback to Nelson regarding emails not being received by him. Chair Walton requested training for understanding what the Historic Resource Survey. Chair Walton also asked for clarity on appeals and how applicants choose their criteria. Additionally Chair Walton requested more clarity on minutes as it pertains to appeals and how they can sometimes be taken out of context when presented to council. Nelson clarifies that all meetings are recorded and are accessible by all. Chair Walton also requested revision or clarity around Section 4.2. Specifically, in how the criteria are used, how the words used to describe the findings are used so that confusion can be removed about Section 4.2. Nelson notes that staff can look at conducting a workshop to help commission better understand the design guidelines, how they differ and how they are consistent with the current design guidelines. Nelson also notes that we will attempt to put more detail within minutes however they are not intended to be verbatim record of the discussion. Nelson also notes that if they are not in agreeance of the meeting minutes, they should not approve them and identify where more detail is needed, however notes that meeting minutes are not meant to be verbatim. Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Romero. Second by Commissioner Davis. Approved unanimously 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. ____________________ ____________________ Michael Walton, Chair Jennifer Powell, Secretary Page 20 of 167 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review April 28, 2022 S UB J E C T: C onc eptual R eview of a request for a C ertificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for an addition that c reates a new, or adds to an exis ting s treet fac ing faç ade; a 6' 10" height modific ation to the required 15' maximum height at the s ide setback to allow a height of 23' 8" at the s ide (east) property line; a 4’ enc roachment into the required 20’ front setback to allow the addition of s tairs 16' from the front (s outh) property line at the property loc ated at 309 E. 11th S treet, bearing the legal des cription 0.1376 ac res , being part of lots 3 and 4, Bloc k 20, G lassc ock Addition (2022-10-C O A) -- Nat Waggoner, As s t. P lanning Dir - Long R ange. IT E M S UMMARY: Requested Changes: T he ap p licant is req uesting to ad d depth to the struc ture by extending the bac k of the hous e (north side) 10 feet with additio nal living s p ace and to extend the fro nt o f the hous e 4 feet to ad d an awning and step s to the main entrance. T he applicant would also like to add a 17’ X 30’ two-story addition T he ad d ition, s et along the east faç ade, set bac k approximately 6 feet fro m the fro nt p ro p erty line, will cons is t o f a s ingle-car garage and living spac e o n the s ec ond flo o r T he total height o f the ad d ition is 21’ 10”. T he garage entranc e will fac e Eas t 11th S treet and will be setb ack 10 feet from the main entrance to the home. T he ro o f pitch for the p ro p o s ed ac cessory struc ture will be 6/12 to matc h the ho us e. T he new garage will meet the eas tern side s etbac k of 6’ and does not encroac h. T he homeowner wo uld like a 6’X4’ mud room, 4’X3’ landing, and 2 s teps to sidewalk to elevatio n. T he remodeled entrance will need a 4-foot variance to the front 20’ setback. T he front door will be replaced. F inally, the applicant would like to replac e windows on the primary s tructure. Windows on the front elevation and the front (western) elevation off 11th S treet. T here are two front windows on the home. T he firs t is a nine over six pane, s ingle hung window. T he proposed replacement for this window is a s implified one over one. T he s econd window is comprised of two s ix over s ix s ingle-hung windows topped by a fan light. P roposed replacement windows are two one over one windows. Feedback Requested: 1. Does the hous e relate to the nearby struc tures in c harac ter and form, and s ize (massing and s cale)? 2. Is there additional information HAR C would like at the public hearing? F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None. Applicant has paid all as s ociated fees. S UB MIT T E D B Y: Nat Waggoner, P MP, AI C P AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Staff Report Backup Material Page 21 of 167 pres entation Backup Material Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit Exhibit 4b - Historic Res ource Survey (2016)Exhibit Exhibit 4a - His toric Resource Survey (1984)Exhibit Exhibit 5 - Public Comment Exhibit Page 22 of 167 Historic & Architectural Review Commission Planning Department Staff Report Report Date: April 22, 2022 File Number: 2022-10-COA AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION Conceptual review for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade; a 6' 8" height modification to the required 15' maximum height at the side setback to allow a height of 23' 8" at the side (east) property line; a 4’ encroachment into the required 20’ front setback to allow the addition of stairs 16' from the front (south) property line at the property located at 309 E. 11th Street, bearing the legal description 0.1376 acres, being part of lots 3 and 4, Block 20, Glasscock Addition. AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: 309 E 11th St Garage with living space Applicant: John Lawton Property Owner: Carey Thornell Property Address: 309 E 11th St Legal Description: 0.1376-acres, Lots 3-4 (PTS), Block 20 of the Glasscock Addition Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District Case History: N/A Prior COA Denials: N/A Prior COA Approvals: N/A HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of Construction: 1930 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Low National Register Designation: N/A Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A Notable Property Owners/Events: N/A APPLICANT’S REQUEST HARC: ✔ Garage addition ✔ Awning and stairs to the front facade ✔ Height modification for garage addition ✔ Setback modification for front facade addition Page 23 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-10-COA – 309 E. 11th Page 2 of 14 STAFF ANALYSIS Present Property Description: The home located at 309 E 11th Street is a low priority structure that was constructed in about 1930 according to the 2016 Historic Resources Survey. The house is simple in form and features horizontal wooden siding, a front facing gable roof that measures 17’ at its peak, and a 779 sq. ft. rectangular plan. The property is 0.13 acres, and the home was constructed slightly off-center on the lot, leaving more space on the eastern side of the property. The home was identified as a low priority structure on the 1984, the 2007, and 2016 H istoric Resource Surveys. This is most likely due to the condition of the home and the amount of original material that exists, or rather does not exist. For example, the two front windows on the home were exchanged between the 1984 and the 2007 survey as the 2007 survey identified that the windows had been made larger as part of the replacement. The windows on the front of the home , as seen in the 1984 survey photo, were likely the original windows based on their simplicity however the 1984 survey does not provide sufficient detail to determine. Requested Changes: The applicant is requesting to add depth to the structure by extending the back of the house (north side) 10 feet with additional living space and to extend the front of the house 4 feet to add an awning and steps to the main entrance. The applicant would also like to add a 17’ X 30’ two-story addition The addition, set along the east façade, set back approximately 6 feet from the front property line, will consist of a single-car garage and living space on the second floor The total height of the addition is 23’ 8”. The garage entrance will face East 11th Street and will be setback 10 feet from the main entrance to the home. The roof pitch for the proposed accessory structure will be 6/12 to match the house. The new garage will meet the eastern side setback of 6’ and does not encroach. The homeowner would like a 6’X4’ mud room, 4’X3’ landing, and 2 steps to sidewalk to elevation. The remodeled entrance will need a 4-foot variance to the front 20’ setback. The front door will be replaced. Finally, the applicant would like to replace windows on the primary structure. Windows on the front elevation and the front (western) elevation off 11th Street. There are two front windows on the home. The first is a nine over six pane, single hung window. The proposed replacement for this window is a simplified one over one. The second window is comprised of two six over six single-hung windows topped by a fan light. Proposed replacement windows are two one over one windows. The fanlight window, the half circle above the larger window on the right of the front door) would be removed. Justification for Requests: The property owner would like to add additional living space for family and would like the use the construction as an opportunity to give the home an update. Additionally, the entry to the primary structure is open with no shelter from elements, per the Letter of Intent (attached). Page 24 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-10-COA – 309 E. 11th Page 3 of 14 Technical Review: The proposed window replacement reverts to the simplified one over one styles, as illustrated by the 1984 survey photo, the proposed windows should also be considered as a non -historic material replacement for a non-historic material as the Historic Resources Surveys show that the original windows were replaced after 1984. The proposed mudroom and entryway addition, a 4’ by 6’ addition at the front of the property, is a utilitarian addition to the primary structure that will not detract from this low priority’s significance. The mudroom will add some additional depth and interest to the front of the home as well as provide a livability update to the structure. The proposed garage addition is a two-story structure that will be setback from the front entrance of the home by 10’. The setback combined with the entryway addition will result in the garage and the front door to be separated approximately 14’ total. Finally, the design of the proposed garage shares features with the primary, such as a shared roof style and roof materials as well as shared windows styles. The shared features demonstrate that the two structures are related. The proposed garage is different from the primary structure in height, from peak to peak, is q4 feet taller than the primary, and in exterior materials by using a vertical board and batten siding while the primary structure uses horizontal boards only for an exterior material. The material differences define the relationship further by highlighting the differences between the two structures: The vertical boards correlate to the taller structure will the horizontal boards correlate to the shorter, primary structure. DESIGN GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines: GUIDELINES FINDINGS CHAPTER THREE – OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES 3.4.C Relationship to Neighbors C.3 Looming guidelines a. When a 2-story addition is added onto the rear or side of an existing home, and the addition extends past the rear wall of an adjacent house there may be no windows placed on the second floor that exceeds the rear Complies While the proposed garage addition is two stories, the looming guidelines are met by the addition’s alignment with the eastern neighbor’s rear wall and by eliminating second-story windows on the side that faces the eastern neighbor. Page 25 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-10-COA – 309 E. 11th Page 4 of 14 of the neighbor's rear wall. The exception is that windows are allowed if the sill height is 65 inches or greater. b. When an addition is made to an existing garage or accessory structure, or a new building added in the rear the new windows and doors must face into the rear yard and not into the side or rear neighbor's property. Additionally, the front-facing windows on the second floor appear to measure over 65” from the ground level to the lower sill. 3.4.D Location of Garages or Carports D.1 It is preferred that garages/carports be detached at the rear of the property. Does Not Comply The garage will be attached to the eastern elevation of the house and will be set back from the front facade by about 10 feet as illustrated in the application. D.2 It is preferred with an attached garage or carport that the garage entrance does not face the street. Does Not Comply The proposed addition will front E. 11th Street. D.4 Garages typically contain one or two cars in Old Town. When an owner requires more than a two-car garage, the garage should be placed behind the house. Complies The proposed garage will have a single parking space. 3.4.E Parking Configuration and Driveways Driveways and parking require a great extent of hard surface which can have a detrimental effect on the historic character of a district. Large expanses of concrete, brick, or crushed granite are not part of the historic character. Partially Complies The proposed new cement driveway will measure 16’9” by 30’. A driveway does not currently exist on this site. The new driveway will take access off the front property line facing East 11th Street. E.3 Driveways are typically single- width in Old Town. The new driveway should be single width at the curb cut and continue at a single width until one reaches a length suitable for one car to park in front of each garage door or carport space. Does Not Comply Driveway width is proposed to be 16’ 9” and the length will be 30’ and will be consistent in length. The average American SUV is about 7’ wide by 17’ long. The proposed driveway would be able to fit four cars, two abreast and two behind. 3.5.C Massing, Scale and Form Page 26 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-10-COA – 309 E. 11th Page 5 of 14 C.1 The overall mass of a new building or addition should convey a sense of human scale. That is floor to floor heights on the ground floor should not exceed 15 feet on the ground floor and 12 feet on the second floor. Building materials should reflect a sense of scale that would appear as if one or two persons could lift the material. Monumental proportions are not appropriate. Complies The 1st floor addition does not exceed 15’ and the height of the 2nd-floor addition is 8’, not including the peak of the roof. The proposed height for the new two- story garage is approximately 23’ 8”, or 6’ 8” feet taller, measured from peak to peak, than the primary at 17’. The proposed materials and overall design reflect the scale of the proposed two-story garage. G.2 Windows b. The windows should be about twice as tall as they are wide and should have the same sill and head height on each floor of the building. The exception is Modern Ranch houses. c. Windows facing the street should have all the same sill height on each floor of the structure. Accent or feature windows are excepted. d. Windows should be laid out symmetrically in each bay (wall plane) that faces the street. Partially Complies The proposed windows are taller than they are wide at 35.5” by 59.5”. The dimensions do not meet the guidelines. The proposed window layout will maintain the same sill around the structure, including the windows facing 11th Street. The layout proposed evenly spaced windows, which meets the guideline. G.3 Window Materials a. Windows should be made of wood or aluminum-clad or fiberglass clad wood. The profiles of the jamb conditions shall resemble the original wood windows in detailing and profile thickness. Partially Complies The proposed southside windows are one over one, white vinyl, single hung. The proposed southside windows do not meet the materials guideline, however the windows that are being replaced are not historic and therefore the project will replace non- historic material with non-historic material. The proposed replacement windows more closely resemble the windows present in the 1984 Survey in their 1 over 1 configuration. Page 27 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-10-COA – 309 E. 11th Page 6 of 14 3.5.K Additions K.1 Design alterations and additions to be compatible with the historic character of the property. Building additions should be in keeping with the original architectural character, color, mass, scale, and materials. Does Not Comply The proposed height for the new two-story garage is approximately 23’ 8”’, approximately 6’ 8” feet taller than the primary at 17’. The new garage shares architectural character with the primary structure through materials and shared features, specifically the windows. The proposed garage differs from the primary in scale and massing as the proposed garage is 6’ 8” taller than the peak of the house. a. Minimize the visual impacts of an addition. New additions should not be so large as to overwhelm the original structure because of location, size, height, or scale. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure. Does Not Comply The primary structure is a single-story with an estimated height of 17’. The new addition is approximately 4’ taller than the primary. The proposed 10’ setback from the primary’s main entrance of the garage, but the height of the garage overwhelms a small 779 sq. ft. house that was initially designed to stand alone on a small 0.13-acre lot. K.2 An addition should be distinguishable from the original building, even in subtle ways, such that the character of the original can be interpreted. Complies The proposed garage will be clad in Hardie board with a vertical board and batten style. The battens, the trim, and skirt, the fascia, and the drip edge are to be wood. The existing structure has a horizontal siding that uses thinner wood boards. The new structure will be deafferented from the old by material and style. The proposed garage, though taller than the primary structure, is simple in its design as the features, such as windows, doors, or any architectural details, are limited on the street-facing façade. c. An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from competing with the primary façade. Does Not Comply The primary structure is a single-story structure with very few architectural details. The new garage may be less impactful if it were pushed further back on the lot, a challenge due to the existing trees. A two-story addition to a mid-block property, without any same- block adjacent two-story structures, will be visible from Elm and Myrtle Streets. The existing windows on the south-facing façade of the primary are more complex windows because they contain multiple panes separated by muntins and Page 28 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-10-COA – 309 E. 11th Page 7 of 14 feature a fan light. The new one over one windows will simplify the windows’ impact as an architectural feature. The proposed windows on the garage will match the replacement windows on the primary, thus sharing a feature to demonstrate a relationship between the two structures. K.3 Location of Additions a. Additions should be located inconspicuously on the least character-defining elevation. Does Not Comply The subject property has one street-facing façade, however the eastern façade can be viewed off of 11th Street. Access to the property is limited to 11th Street as this is a mid-block property. The garage is forced to go along the eastern property line because the house is off-center on the property leaving a wider space on the eastern side The garage cannot be pushed further back on the property without tree removal, but pushing it further back on the property would help to minimize the impact on 11th Street. Additionally, moving the garage further to the rear of the property will eliminate most of the rear yard. b. Place additions on the first floor, whenever possible, in portions of the neighborhoods with predominantly one-story houses. Does Not Comply The house to the east of the subject property at 311 E 11th St. has a similar plan and style, these two were likely constructed as a pair by the same builder and are both single story. Both houses are identified as low priority on the 2016 HRS. The adjacent house is also 17’ tall. Directly across the street from the subject property is a church with a two-story addition along 11th Street. Within the block, structures are single story. c. Additions should be to the rear of the existing structure or as far away from the public street unless there is sufficient side yard width. Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts. This will allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Does Not Comply The proposed garage placement is not at the rear of the property or the rear of the primary structure. The original proportion of the home and the lot, together, is meant to be small. The original lot split, after the 1916 Sanborn, was to reduce a quarter block size into a 1/8th block size. The intention of the lot size reduction was to create smaller housing options. d. While a smaller addition is visually preferable, if a residential addition Does Not Comply Page 29 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-10-COA – 309 E. 11th Page 8 of 14 would be significantly larger than the original building, one option is to separate it from the primary building, when feasible, and then link it with a smaller connecting structure. The addition is approximately 6’ 8” taller than the primary structure and is connected to the primary along the eastern elevation. e. An addition shall be set back from any primary, character-defining façade. If sufficient side yard width is available, the addition should be recessed behind the front façade by a minimum of ten feet (10'-0"). Complies The garage is proposed to be setback 10 feet from the primary entrance. K.4 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building. Complies The proposed roof for the new garage has a pitch of 6/12 to match the house. a. Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate for residential additions. Flat roofs may be more appropriate for commercial buildings. Complies The garage addition includes a front gable roof that runs perpendicular to 11th Street and is compatible in form with the roof of the primary structure. b. Repeat existing roof slopes and materials. Complies The proposed slope matches the existing structure and the proposed roof materials, laminate architectural shingles, matches the existing roof material. c. If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. Complies The proposed roof is proportional to the existing roof. K.5 Second Story Additions Consider adding dormers to create second-story spaces before changing the scale of the building by adding a full second floor. Does Not Comply A full second floor is proposed. K.6 Design of additions should be compatible with the primary structure. Partially Complies The addition does not utilize complex design features and instead borrows from the primary. The scale of the addition’s features are compatible with the primary and in fact are shared with the primary. One shared feature will be the windows after they are replaced. The other shared feature is the roof design and materials. Page 30 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-10-COA – 309 E. 11th Page 9 of 14 The massing and scale of the proposed garage is incompatible to the primary structure and the lot. a. Use roof forms, pitches, overhangs, and materials that are similar to the original structure. Complies The proposed roof for the new garage has a pitch of 6/12 to match the house. The proposed materials are asphalt shingles to match the primary. b. Match window types, shapes, and proportions similar to those of the original structure. Complies The proposed replacement windows on the primary will match the proposed windows on the garage. c. Additions should acknowledge and respect and where appropriate include architectural features of existing buildings. Complies The proposed garage will share a similar roof design, front gable, with the primary structure as well windows. K.7 Exterior Materials of Additions a. The selection of exterior materials should be compatible with the primary building. Complies The proposed garage will have board and batten siding, which does not match the primary but is actually compatible because it does not match. The distinct difference between exterior materials between the two structures allows for the home to stand out from the garage. b. Use the same siding and roof materials as used on the original structure if possible. Complies The structures will have the same roof materials. c. Materials should strive to be the same color, size, and proportion and used in the same manner as the original house but not necessarily used in the same overall proportions. This allows the addition to be recognized as an addition. Complies The proposed garage will have a vertical board and batten siding to stand out and apart from the horizontal boards on the primary. K.9 Distinguish New from Old a. Although designed to be compatible with the original building, an addition should be discernible from it. For example, it can be differentiated from the original building through a break in roofline, cornice height, wall plane, change in materials, siding profile, or window Complies The proposed garage will have a vertical board and batten siding to stand out and apart from the horizontal boards on the primary. Aside from the board and batten siding, the proposed garage does not have any additional features that would make it stand out. The shared roof type and the shared window proportions between the primary and the Page 31 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-10-COA – 309 E. 11th Page 10 of 14 type. Attention to materials and details will be critical to achieving the desired design unity. proposed garage will show that the structures are related but different. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, HARC must consider the following criteria: SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies The application is complete. 2. Compliance with applicable design standards of this Code; Partially Complies The proposed garage departs from the design guidelines in height. 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Complies The proposed garage is distinct from the primary and could be removed without damaging the primary. The replacement windows on the primary comply because the windows to be replaced are not original and are not a similar style to the original windows, as shows in the 1984 HRS. 4. Compliance with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Partially Complies The proposed garage does not comply with the Design Guidelines for height and scale to the primary structure. 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; Partially Complies The proposed garage is set back from the primary building. However, the size of the garage addition coupled with the size of the lot and surrounding structures may impact the architectural integrity of the primary structure. 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district; Partially Complies The proposed garage will be about 7’ taller than the primary, a difference that is not seen elsewhere on the block, however the new garage shares features with the primary and is compatible on the site. Page 32 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-10-COA – 309 E. 11th Page 11 of 14 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected Does Not Comply The proposed garage will have an adverse effect on the site and the block because a two- story does not currently exist on this site. 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines and the character of the historic overlay district. Not Applicable In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a request for COA for a setback modification. SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience; Does Not Comply The setback encroachment is the result of a proposed mud room to the front of the house. The addition of the mud room also allows for an awning over the front door to be added for protection against weather. b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without encroaching into the setback; Partially Complies The mudroom could not be added to a different part of the house without a significantly complex construction process. Adding to the existing entryway is easier because the doorway is not loadbearing. c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject property is located; Complies The proposed entryway extension will add four feet to the length of the house towards East 11th Street. Through the neighbor property at 311 E 11th St did not change the treatment of their 11th street facing façade, they did create an entirely new entryway with an extended porch facing Elm Street. An opportunity that the mid-block property under consider does not have. Page 33 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-10-COA – 309 E. 11th Page 12 of 14 SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units within the block; Does Not Comply The proposed addition will add 4 feet to the front of the house towards 11th Street. Other structures on the block are just about as close to the street as the proposed addition. For example, 311 E 11th Street added a porch to the façade that faces Elm Street making it closer to that street. e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year; Complies The structure has not been updated or replace in the last year. f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the same footprint and encroachment as proposed; Does Not Comply The proposed mudroom does not replace any features; it will add to the entryway. g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the proposed structure is significantly larger than the original; Does Not Comply The proposed mudroom is not replacing a previously existing structure. h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original house; Complies The scale of the additional mudroom is proportional to the rest of the house. i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block; Complies The proposed entryway extension is smaller than the additions for 311 E 11th Street, which works on this mid-block property. j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings; Complies The entryway extension and mudroom will not have an adverse effect on adjacent properties. k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or any adjacent structures; and/or Complies The proposed addition will not negatively impact maintenance abilities. l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved. Partially Complies There is sufficient room on the site to allow an addition without impacting Page 34 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-10-COA – 309 E. 11th Page 13 of 14 SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS trees or significant features of the lot, but this 4’x6’ entryway addition does not make sense, in terms of use, elsewhere on the property. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 C of the Unified Development Code, HARC must consider the following criteria for the height modification: SECTION 3.13.030 C CRITERIA FINDINGS HARC may grant a request for a variation in height from the standards set forth in Section 4.08.020.A only if it determines that the following goals or purposes will still be achieved: a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the Town Square Historic District will be protected; and Complies The two story structure would not block views to and from Town Square and the Courthouse. b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square Historic District will be defined, reinforced, and preserved; and N/A The project is located outside of the Downtown Overlay District. c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing structures in the immediate vicinity remains consistent; and Does Not Comply The two-story garage addition proposes a different relationship to the street, within the site, and within the block than the historic development patterns of the area. d. The proposed project allows for the best utilization of redevelopment in the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square Historic District; and N/A The project is located outside of the Downtown Overlay District. e. The proposed project protects the historic buildings in the Downtown Overlay District. N/A The project is located outside of the Downtown Overlay District. Page 35 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-10-COA – 309 E. 11th Page 14 of 14 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends DENIAL of the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade; a 6' 8" height modification to the required 15' maximum height at the side setback to allow a height of 23' 8" at the side (east) property line; Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends Approval for a 4’ encroachment into the required 20’ front setback to allow the addition of stairs 16' from the front (south) property line at the property located at 309 E. 11th Street, bearing the legal description 0.1376 acres, being part of lots 3 and 4, Block 20, Glasscock Addition. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Surveys Exhibit 5 – Public Comments SUBMITTED BY Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP, Asst. Planning Dir. – Long Range Page 36 of 167 309 E 11th St Garage addition, window replacement, and entryway addition 2022-10-COA Historic & Architectural Review Commission April 28, 2022 Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP Page 37 of 167 2 Item Under Consideration 2022-10-COA Conceptual review for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade; a 6’ 8" height modification to the required 15' maximum height at the side setback to allow a height of 23’8” 10" at the side (east) property line; a 4’ encroachment into the required 20’ front setback to allow the addition of stairs 16' from the front (south) property line at the property located at 309 E. 11th Street, bearing the legal description 0.1376 acres, being part of lots 3 and 4, Block 20, Glasscock Addition. Page 38 of 167 3 Item Under Consideration HARC: ●Garage addition ●Awning and stairs to the front facade ●Height modification for garage addition ●Setback modification for front facade addition Page 39 of 167 4 Current Context Page 40 of 167 5 Current Context Page 41 of 167 6 Sanborn Map -1910 Page 42 of 167 7 Sanborn Map -1916 Page 43 of 167 8 1964 Aerial Photo Page 44 of 167 9 1974 Aerial Photo Page 45 of 167 10 1984 HRS Photo Page 46 of 167 11 2016 HRS Photo Page 47 of 167 12 Current Photos Page 48 of 167 13 Current Photos -Garage location Page 49 of 167 14 Current Photos Looking east Looking northwest Page 50 of 167 15 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Image provided by applicant. 20’ Front setback 6’ Side setback Page 51 of 167 16 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Image provided by applicant. 23’ 8” New Windows New Entryway 6’ 8” Difference Page 52 of 167 17 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials West Elevation 23’ 8” 4’ Proposed Page 53 of 167 18 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials North Elevation Page 54 of 167 19 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials East Elevation Page 55 of 167 20 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials East Elevation Page 56 of 167 21 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials West Elevation Page 57 of 167 22 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials West Elevation Page 58 of 167 23 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials North Elevation Page 59 of 167 24 Design Guidelines –Chapter 3.5G.3 Criteria Staff’s Finding 3.5.G.3.a. Windows should be made of wood or aluminum-clad wood or fiberglass clad wood. The profiles and jamb conditions shall resemble the original wood windows in detailing and profile thickness. Partially Complies Page 60 of 167 25 Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030 Criteria Staff’s Finding 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies 2. Compliance with applicable design standards of this Code;Partially Complies 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable;Complies 4. Compliance with the Historic District Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Partially Complies 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Partially Complies 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district; Partially Complies 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Does Not Comply 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district.Not Applicable Page 61 of 167 26 Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030.D2 Criteria Staff’s Finding a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience;Does Not Comply b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without encroaching into the setback; Partially Complies c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject property is located;Complies d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units within the block; Does Not Comply e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year;Complies f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the same footprint and encroachment as proposed; Does Not Comply Page 62 of 167 27 Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030.D Criteria Staff’s Finding g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the proposed structure is significantly larger than the original; Does Not Comply h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original house;Complies i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block;Complies j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;Complies k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or any adjacent structures; and/or Complies l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved. Partially Complies Page 63 of 167 28 Height Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030.C Criteria Staff’s Finding Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the Town Square Historic District will be protected; and Complies The character of the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square Historic District will be defined, reinforced, and preserved; and N/A The relationship of the proposed project to the existing structures in the immediate vicinity remains consistent; and Does Not Comply The proposed project allows for the best utilization of redevelopment in the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square Historic District; and N/A The proposed project protects the historic buildings in the Downtown Overlay District. N/A Page 64 of 167 29 Staff Recommendation Based on the findings listed above,staff recommends DENIAL of the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)for an addition that creates a new,or adds to an existing street facing façade;a 6'8"height modification to the required 15'maximum height at the side setback to allow a height of 23' 8"at the side (east)property line; Based on the findings listed above,staff recommends Approval for a 4’encroachment into the required 20’front setback to allow the addition of stairs 16'from the front (south)property line at the property located at 309 E.11th Street,bearing the legal description 0.1376 acres,being part of lots 3 and 4,Block 20,Glasscock Addition. Page 65 of 167 30 HARC Motion –2022-10-COA •Approve (as presented by the applicant) •Deny (as presented by the applicant) •Approve with conditions •Postpone Page 66 of 167 Green Earth Builders, LLC 2306 Waizel Way Georgetown, Texas 78626 Office: 512-591-7588 Cell: 512-779-0100 Web: WWW.GREENEARTHBUILDERS.NET Email: jennhaleygeb@gmail.com 309 E 11th St Letter of Intent 309 E 11th St is a cottage in need of a little TLC. The owner would also like to add space to accommodate her grandchildren. We are asking to extend the back of the house (north side_ 10 feet. On the east side of house setting back 12 feet from southeast corner. Adding a 17 X 30 food two story structure. A single car garage with utility room on the first floor. Second floor to be a studio for the grandchildren. Being a part of existing home there will be a 30 foot shed roof (cricket) to correct water to flow to overhang on house. Second floor to be a 6/12 pitch to match house. The entry into the house is open with no shelter from elements. Owner would like a 6X4 foot mud room. There will also be window replacement taking out arch windows and matching existing front windows on southwest corner. New construction to be compliant with all codes and regulations. Slab and piers to be engineered. All electrical, plumbing, and HVAC to be done by certified contractors. Exterior ½” OSB sheathing, Tyvek house wrap. Siding to be Hardie. Battens, exterior trims, water table, skirt, fascia, drip edge to be wood. Floor trusses and roof trusses to be engineered as well. Page 67 of 167 Page 68 of 167 Page 69 of 167 Green Earth Builders, LLC 2306 Waizel Way Georgetown, Texas 78626 Office: 512-591-7588 Cell: 512-779-0100 Web: WWW.GREENEARTHBUILDERS.NET Email: jennhaleygeb@gmail.com 309 E 11th St Letter of Intent 309 E 11th St is a cottage in need of a little TLC. The owner would also like to add space to accommodate her grandchildren. We are asking to extend the back of the house (north side) 10 feet. On the east side of house setting back 12 feet from southeast corner. Adding a 17 X 30 food two story structure. A single car garage with utility room on the first floor. Second floor to be a studio for the grandchildren. Being a part of existing home there will be a 30-foot shed roof (cricket) to correct water to flow to overhang on house. Second floor to be a 6/12 pitch to match house. The entry into the house is open with no shelter from elements. Owner would like a 6X4 foot mud room. We will need a 4-foot variance for this on the front setback. There will also be 2- 3(0)5(0) windows installed in place of arch windows and matching existing front windows on southwest corner. A 4’X3’ landing and 2 steps to sidewalk to elevation.New construction to be compliant with all codes and regulations. Slab and piers to be engineered. All electrical, plumbing, and HVAC to be done by certified contractors. Exterior ½” OSB sheathing, Tyvek house wrap. Siding to be Hardie. Battens, exterior trims, water table, skirt, fascia, drip edge to be wood. Floor trusses and roof trusses to be engineered as well. Page 70 of 167 Page 71 of 167 Page 72 of 167 Page 73 of 167 Page 74 of 167 Page 75 of 167 Page 76 of 167 Page 77 of 167 Page 78 of 167 Page 79 of 167 Page 80 of 167 Page 81 of 167 Page 82 of 167 Page 83 of 167 Page 84 of 167 Page 85 of 167 Page 86 of 167 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:309 E 11th St 2016 Survey ID:126378 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Low SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R042507Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 3/3/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1930 Bungalow Other: Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan Rectangular T-plan Four Square L-plan Irregular Plan* International Ranch No Style Post-war Modern Commercial Style Other: Pueblo Revival Prairie Art Deco Spanish Colonial Craftsman Moderne Gothic Revival Neo-Classical Mission Tudor Revival Beaux Arts Monterey Shingle Folk Victorian Renaissance Revival Romanesque Revival Colonial Revival Exotic Revival Log traditional Italianate Eastlake Greek Revival Second Empire Queen Anne Stylistic Influence(s)* Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s) General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: windows enlarged and replaced) High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID:258 ID:159 *Photographs and Preservation Priority have been updated in 2016, and the year built date has also been reviewed. However, the plan and style data are sourced directly from the 2007 survey. 2007 Survey 1984 Survey Current/Historic Name None/None ID:126378 2016 Survey High Medium Low Explain:Property lacks significance and integrity Latitude:30.634317 Longitude -97.674488 None Selected None Selected Photo direction: Northwest Page 87 of 167 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:309 E 11th St 2016 Survey ID:126378 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Low Additional Photos NorthPhoto Direction Page 88 of 167 1. County TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY Williamson FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION 5. USGS Quad No. 3097-313 (rev. 8-82) Site No 159 WM City/Rural 2. Name Georgetown GE UTM Sector 627-3389 6 Date: Factual Est 1 9'30 Address 309 E. 11th 7 Architect/Builder Contractor 3. Owner 8 Style/Type Address 9. Original Use resi d en ti a1 4. Block/Lot Glasscock /Blk . 20/Lot pt. 5 Present Use residential One-story wood frame dwelling; exterior walls with 117/121 10. Description siding: gahl e roof Tai with composition shingles; exposed rafter ends; front elev. faces south: wood sash douhle-hung windows with 1/1 lights; single-door entrance. Other noteworthy features include preqcpci metal foundation skirt with ashlar-cut stone effect. 11. Present Condition good 12. Significance 13. Relationship to Site: Moved Date or Original Site (describe) 14. Bibliography 15. Informant 16. Recorder Date DESIGNATIONS PHOTO DATA TNRIS No. Old THC Code B&W 4x5s Slides q RTHL q NABS (no.) TEX- 35mm Negs. NR: 0 Individual 0 Historic District YEAR DRWR ROLL FRME ROLL FRME q Thematic EiMultiple-Resource NR File Name 22 2 to to to Other CONTINUATION PAGE No 2 of 2 TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82) 1. County Williamson 3097-313 159 5. USGS Quad No Site No Georgetown City/Rural 2. Name Page 89 of 167 Page 90 of 167 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review April 28, 2022 S UB J E C T: P ublic Hearing and pos s ible ac tion on a request for a C ertificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for an addition that c reates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade, a 7’ 6 1/2" encroac hment into the required 10’-0” rear s etbac k to allow a detached garage 2' 5 1/2"inches from the rear (west) property line; a 21' enc roachment into the required 25' s treet fac ing garage s treet setback to allow a garage 4' from the side s treet (south) property line at the property located at 1256 S . Main S treet, bearing the legal desc ription 0.3306 ac res , being part of Bloc k C , Morrow Addition (2022-12-C O A) -- Nat Waggoner, As s t. P lanning Dir - Long R ange. IT E M S UMMARY: Requested Changes: T he ap p lic ant is reques ting to cons truct a new garage (495 sq. ft.) within the 25' garage street s etbac k and the 10' rear setb ack, 392 sq. ft ad d ition to the firs t flo o r and a 581 s q . ft. 2nd flo o r additio n with dormers to the rear of the primary s tructure. 4.14.22 HAR C Conceptual Feedback Requested: T he C o mmis s io n inquired about the feas ib ility of moving the garage o ut of the rear setback. T he applicants have s hared that the garage loc ation is neces s ary to avoid conflict with an existing 1st floor hipped roof eave, approximately 1’ 11” to the eas t of the propos ed garage. Additionally, the C o mmis s io n inq uired ab o ut the 2nd flo o r b ed ro o m window o n the north facade and potential fo r lo o ming effec ts on the neighb o ring p ro p erty. T he rear additio n o f the hous e will not extend beyond the rear of their northern neighbor at 1252 S Main S t. Public Notification: As req uired by the Unified Develo p ment C ode, all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the s ubjec t property were no tified of the C ertificate o f Ap p ro p riatenes s reques t (37 notices), and two (2) signs were pos ted o n-s ite. To d ate, s taff has received 1 written c o mment in favo r o f the ad d itions and 0 in opposition to the reques t. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None. T he applicant has paid the required application fees . S UB MIT T E D B Y: Nat Waggoner, P MP, AI C P AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Staff Report Cover Memo Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit Page 91 of 167 Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Survey Exhibit Exhibit 5 - Public Comment Exhibit Pres entation Exhibit Page 92 of 167 Historic & Architectural Review Commission Planning Department Staff Report Report Date: April 22, 2022 File Number: 2022-12-COA AGENDA ITEM DETAILS Project Name: 1256 S. Main Street Applicant: Wang Architects, c/o Gary Wang Property Owner: Scott & Colleen MacMurdo Property Address: 1256 S. Main Street Legal Description: .3306 acres, Block C (PT), Morrow Addition Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay Case History: Prior COA Denials: Prior COA Approvals: 2022-12-COA demolition of a low priority garage (approved 4.14.22). At the 4.14.22 meeting, the Commission also provided feedback on the additions and setback modifications. The Commission asked the applicant to consider moving the garage east out of the side setback as well as consideration of looming impacts on the residence to the north. Post-Approval Project Amendments (Date): HISTORIC CONTEXT Date of Construction: 1915 Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: High National Register Designation: Belford National Register District Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A Notable Property Owners/Events: N/A APPLICANT’S REQUEST HARC: ✓ Garage addition (495 sq. ft.) ✓ Setback modifications to the street facing garage and rear setbacks ✓ First floor addition (392 sq. ft.) ✓ Second floor addition (581 sq. ft.) STAFF ANALYSIS Present Property Description: The subject property is 2,751 sq. ft. two story home with an open porch and detached garage (demolition of garage approved 4.14.22). The main structure includes a later addition to the rear of the property. The 2016 Historic Resource Survey identifies this property as a craftsman style home, in a modified L plan, Page 93 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-12-COA – 1256 S Main St. Page 2 of 11 built in 1913 by the Belford Lumber Company. This house is listed as the Laura Wileman House on the 2016 Historic Resource Survey. Laura A. Tatom was born in Itawamba County, Mississippi on August 1, 1857. She married Galenius McClanahan Wileman, who died in 1902, and as a widow bought and sold quite a bit of property in Georgetown. She passed away on December 11, 1949 and is buried in the Odd Fellows Cemetery in Georgetown with her husband. They had two daughters, who inherited the house when she passed away. Georgetown’s founder George Washington Glasscock had several children, and one of his sons owned this property, likely after G. W. Glasscock passed away in 1868. In 1911 Albert Horton Glasscock sold property at the northeast corner of what was then Main Street and Glasscock Avenue to Cooper and Annie Sansom. The Sansom house at 1252 S. Main was built in 1910 . The Sansoms sold a 120 sq. ft. parcel (where the subject property is now), their side yard, to Laura Wileman on July 22, 1912 for $750. Laura owned the house until she passed away, and her daughters sold the house to H. W. and Jovita Kilpatrick on May 7, 1951. The house was then sold to Fred and Gladys Smith in 1953, and Gladys sold the house to E. C. and Virginia Girvin in 1963. Based on the ownership records, maps, and photos, it appears that the addition was most likely constructed by the Smiths. Requested Changes: The applicant is requesting to construct a new garage (495 sq. ft.), 12’ in height will gabled roof parallel to 16th Street, within the street facing garage and rear setbacks, addition of 392 sq. ft. to the first floor and a 581 sq. ft. addition with dormers to the rear of the primary structure. Justification for Requests: The applicants are seeking additional bedrooms and living space for their family. They are seeking setback modifications to place a similar size garage in the location of previous garage. The applicants have shared that the garage location is necessary to avoid conflict with an existing 1st floor hipped roof eave, approximately 1’ 11” to the east of the proposed garage. Technical Review: The applicant proposes a two-story addition to the rear of the structure totaling 973 sq. ft. The 1st floor addition, approximately 581 sq. ft. will provide a master bedroom and a gang of windows into the rear yard. The first-floor addition will maintain the roof form of the primary structure, carrying the same eave and ridge heights of the primary. The 2nd story addition includes cross gables that compliment the gables of the primary structure facing Main Street (east façade) and 16th Street. 2nd floor windows within the gable facing 16th Street are more narrow than windows of the mirrored gable of the primary in order to distinguish the new addition from the primary. The garage addition, approximately 495 sq. ft., is a simple square plan with a roof that compliments the primary in form, pitch and ridgeline orientation. Page 94 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-12-COA – 1256 S Main St. Page 3 of 11 DESIGN GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE Staff has determined that the proposed project complies with 27 of the 29 applicable Historic District Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 as detailed below in the Applicable Design Guidelines section below. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines: GUIDELINES FINDINGS CHAPTER THREE – OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES 3.4.C Relationship to Neighbors C.3 Looming guidelines a. When a 2-story addition is added onto the rear or side of an existing home, and the addition extends past the rear wall of an adjacent house there may be no windows placed on the second floor that exceeds the rear of the neighbor's rear wall. The exception is that windows are allowed if the sill height is 65 inches or greater. b. When an addition is made to an existing garage or accessory structure, or a new building added in the rear the new windows and doors must face into the rear yard and not into the side or rear neighbor's property. Complies The rear addition of the house will not extend beyond the rear of their northern neighbor at 1252 S Main St. The rear addition will extend beyond the rear wall of the home at 1602 S. Main, however the two homes are approximately 92 ft. apart and separated by 16th Street. 3.4.D Location of Garages or Carports D.1 It is preferred that garages/carports be detached at the rear of the property. Complies The garage will be detached from the house. D.2 It is preferred with an attached garage or carport that the garage entrance does not face the street. Does Not Comply The proposed garage will be added to the street-frontage of 16th Street. The applicant has identified three properties within a block of the project that have street-facing garages onto 16th Street. D.4 Garages typically contain one or two cars in Old Town. When an owner requires more than a two-car garage, the garage should be placed behind the house. Complies The proposed project will not increase the garage capacity over two cars. 3.5.C Massing, Scale and Form A variety of building sizes exist in this area. While contemporary design approaches are encouraged, developments should continue Complies Within the block, there are examples of two story primary structures and additions. Page 95 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-12-COA – 1256 S Main St. Page 4 of 11 to exhibit a variety of sizes, similar to the buildings seen traditionally in the neighborhood. C.1 The overall mass of a new building or addition should convey a sense of human scale. That is floor to floor heights on the ground floor should not exceed 15 feet on the ground floor and 12 feet on the second floor. Building materials should reflect a sense of scale that would appear as if one or two persons could lift the material. Monumental proportions are not appropriate. Complies The proposed garage does not exceed 15 feet in height. The materials provide a human scale and are not monumental in proportion. The addition to the rear of the existing structure maintains ridgeline and eave heights and materials of the primary structure. The first and second floors of the addition meet the recommended heights of 12 and 15 feet respectively. G.2 Windows b. The windows should be about twice as tall as they are wide and should have the same sill and head height on each floor of the building. The exception is Modern Ranch houses. c. Windows facing the street should have all the same sill height on each floor of the structure. Accent or feature windows are excepted. d. Windows should be laid out symmetrically in each bay (wall plane) that faces the street. Complies The windows proposed for the 16th Street façade windows are twice as tall (1’6”) as they are wide (5’) and maintain the same sill and head height as the existing windows and are constructed of wood., laid our symmetrically in each bay of the addition. 3.5.K Additions K.1 Design alterations and additions to be compatible with the historic character of the property. Building additions should be in keeping with the original architectural character, color, mass, scale, and materials. Complies The additions maintain a rectangular plan and adapts the hipped and dormered roof form. The design of the addition is keeping with the character of the primary structure in terms of mass and scale as does the garage. The addition proposes a painted brick siding to match the existing structure. a. Minimize the visual impacts of an addition. New additions should not be so large as to overwhelm the original structure because of location, size, height, or scale. It should be designed to remain subordinate to Partially Complies The proposed addition will be added to the rear of the house, which is visible from 16th Street. The addition is complimentary in size, height and scale of the primary structure, it is Page 96 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-12-COA – 1256 S Main St. Page 5 of 11 the main structure. neither subordinate nor dominant of the primary. The visual impact of the addition is minimized with complimentary roof forms, materials. The addition proposes a total of 973 sq. ft., the majority of which will be placed on the 1st floor and masked by the garage addition; enlarging the existing structure from 2,751 sq. ft. to 3,724 sq. ft. K.2 An addition should be distinguishable from the original building, even in subtle ways, such that the character of the original can be interpreted. Complies The addition is distinguishable through the use of lesser window proportions and design. c. An addition should be simple in design to prevent it from competing with the primary façade. Complies The addition’s architectural details will mimic some of the character-defining features of the primary, such as deep eaves, dormers with multiple windows, and the roof form. K.3 Location of Additions a. Additions should be located inconspicuously on the least character- defining elevation. Complies The subject property has two street-facing facades. The addition is proposed at the rear of the property and will be visible from 16th Street. The proposed garage, however, will mask the 1st floor addition. b. Place additions on the first floor, whenever possible, in portions of the neighborhoods with predominantly one- story houses. Complies Both 16th and Main Street include single- and two-story contributing structures. The primary structure is originally a two-story house; similar in size and scale of structures within the block. c. Additions should be to the rear of the existing structure or as far away from the public street unless there is sufficient side yard width. Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impacts. This will allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Complies The addition is to be placed at the rear of the structure. d. While a smaller addition is visually preferable, if a residential addition would be significantly larger than the original building, one option is to separate it from Complies The addition, though two-stories, is smaller than the original, 973 sq. ft. to 2,751 sq. ft. Page 97 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-12-COA – 1256 S Main St. Page 6 of 11 the primary building, when feasible, and then link it with a smaller connecting structure. e. An addition shall be set back from any primary, character-defining façade. If sufficient side yard width is available, the addition should be recessed behind the front façade by a minimum of ten feet (10'-0"). Complies The addition is a setback from the character- defining façade. K.4 The roof of a new addition shall be in character with that of the primary building. Complies The garage addition includes a cross gable that runs parallel to 16th and Main Streets and is compatible in form with the hipped and dormered roof of the primary structure. a. Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate for residential additions. Flat roofs may be more appropriate for commercial buildings. Complies The garage addition includes a hipped roof with compatible dormers. b. Repeat existing roof slopes and materials. Complies The addition repeats the slope and materials of the primary roof. c. If the roof of the primary building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. Complies Both the primary building and addition utilize symmetrically proportioned roof forms. K.5 Second Story Additions Consider adding dormers to create second- story spaces before changing the scale of the building by adding a full second floor. Complies Applicant is using dormers to compliment the existing roof form and as a partial second story. K.6 Design of additions should be compatible with the primary structure. Complies The design of the addition is compatible with the primary. a. Use roof forms, pitches, overhangs, and materials that are similar to the original structure. Complies Both the primary building and the addition make use of hipped roofs with dormers. The materials are to match the existing. The eaves of the primary structure are character-defining and included to be matched by the addition. b. Match window types, shapes, and proportions similar to those of the original structure. Complies The proposed windows appear to match the existing, but a schedule was not provided. c. Additions should acknowledge and respect and where appropriate include Complies The applicant shows acknowledgement and Page 98 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-12-COA – 1256 S Main St. Page 7 of 11 architectural features of existing buildings. respect for the existing, high priority historic structure by making selective design choices, such as the roof layout and the depth of the eaves. K.7 Exterior Materials of Additions a. The selection of exterior materials should be compatible with the primary building. Complies Siding and trim are to be the same profile. b. Use the same siding and roof materials as used on the original structure if possible. Complies Both the addition and the proposed garage will use complimentary materials to match the house. c. Materials should strive to be the same color, size, and proportion and used in the same manner as the original house but not necessarily used in the same overall proportions. This allows the addition to be recognized as an addition. Complies The proposed materials are compatible with the primary structure in size, color, and general proportion, but the addition will be simple in design and will not use the same number of architectural features as the primary. K.9 Distinguish New from Old a. Although designed to be compatible with the original building, an addition should be discernible from it. For example, it can be differentiated from the original building through a break in roofline, cornice height, wall plane, change in materials, siding profile, or window type. Attention to materials and details will be critical to achieving the desired design unity. Complies The proposed additions repeat existing hipped/dormer forms and overall materials. Windows of the addition are to match the primary. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, HARC must consider the following criteria. Staff has determined that the applicant has met 4 out of 8 of these criteria. SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action; Complies 2. Compliance with applicable design standards of this Code; Partially Complies Seeking a setback encroachment to the rear and street facing garage setbacks. 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to Partially Complies Proposed project complies with applicable Page 99 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-12-COA – 1256 S Main St. Page 8 of 11 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS the most extent practicable; SOI Standards, which include: 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. The addition requires modifications to the roof and wall structure. 4. Compliance with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Partially Complies Proposed addition and new garage are both compatible in siding materials, roof form, and location. The addition is neither subordinate nor dominant of the primary structure. The 2nd story addition will be visible from 16th Street and the garage will face the street. 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved; Complies The architectural integrity of the building is preserved on the primary structure. The proposed garage is compatible in form, location, and materials. The new garage is simple, just like the original, and the new location retains its subordinance to the primary as a utilitarian structure. 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the Complies Examples of rear addition and new garage Page 100 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-12-COA – 1256 S Main St. Page 9 of 11 SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS applicable historic overlay district; are found throughout Old Town and adjacent to the subject property. A similar new garage was built across 16th Street. 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected Complies The location of the two-story addition along 16th Street will limit the visibility of the structure from Main Street. The addition will be visible from 16th Street but will be limited by portions of the primary structure and the new garage. 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines and the character of the historic overlay district. Not Applicable No signs are proposed. In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a request for COA for a setback modification. In accordance with Section 3.13.030.D.2 of the Unified Development Code, HARC must consider the following criteria. Staff has determined that the applicant has met 11 out of 12 of these criteria. SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience; Complies The setback matches the existing noncontributing garage. b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without encroaching into the setback; Partially Complies The applicants have shared that the garage location is necessary to avoid conflict with an existing 1st floor hipped roof eave, approximately 1’ 11” to the east of the proposed garage. c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject property is located; Complies Along both 16th and Main Streets, there are varying setbacks seen on both historic and newly constructed garages. d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units within the block; Complies The proposed addition will be set a similar distance along 16th street as other garages. e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year; Complies The proposed garage will replace a structure that was approved for demolition in 2022. Page 101 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-12-COA – 1256 S Main St. Page 10 of 11 SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the same footprint and encroachment as proposed; Complies The proposed garage will have footprint and encroachment as proposed. g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the proposed structure is significantly larger than the original; Complies The proposed garage will not be larger than the original. h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original house; Complies The proposed addition is smaller than the existing house and is scaled proportionally. i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block; Complies There are some examples of two-story additions nearby and several examples of new garages nearby. j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings; Complies The proposed additions comply with looming standards of Guidelines 3.C.3. The ability to maintain existing buildings will not be affected. k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or any adjacent structures; and/or Complies The proposed addition will not negatively impact maintenance abilities. l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved. Complies There is sufficient room on the site to allow an addition without impacting trees or significant features of the lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request. As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the subject property were notified of the Certificate of Appropriateness request (37 notices), and two (2) signs were posted on-site. To date, staff has received 1 written comment in favor of the additions and 0 in opposition to the request. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Page 102 of 167 Planning Department Staff Report Historic and Architectural Review Commission 2022-12-COA – 1256 S Main St. Page 11 of 11 Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Survey Exhibit 5 – Public Comment SUBMITTED BY Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP, Asst. Planning Dir. – Long Range Page 103 of 167 Location 2022-12-COA Exhibit #1 E 1 5TH ST E 16TH S T FO R E S T S T W 14TH ST W 16TH ST E 17TH ST W 17TH ST S C H U R C H S T S A U S T I N A V E S M A I N S T S M Y R T L E S T E U B A N K S T K N I G H T S T E 14TH ST E 16TH ST S M Y R T L E S T GE O R G E S T 0 200100 Feet ¯ Site Parcels Page 104 of 167 WANG ARCHITECTS LLC Architecture + Urban Design 608 East University Ave. Georgetown, TX 78626 Ph: 512.819.6012 www.wangarchitects.com April 4, 2022 Nat Waggoner Historical and Architecture Review Commission City of Georgetown Re: 1256 S Main Street Dear Mr. Waggoner and Members of the Historical and Architectural Review Commission: We are pleased to submit this project on behalf of our clients, Scott and Colleen Macmurdo. This proposal consists of 3 specific “asks” from this Commission: 1) Approval of a Garage Addition. We are requesting to keep the same SW corner location as the existing garage, which is not in conformance with current UDC setbacks 2) Approval of a house addition 3) Overhang for house setback. We would like to match the overhang at other portions of the house, which is 5’. Included here are pages to further describe the rationale for the proposed project’s design: Page 1, Site Map Page 2-3, Existing Conditions Page 4, Site Design Plan with project information Page 5, Existing Floor Plans Page 6, Existing Ground Floor Plan Page 7, Proposed Ground Floor Plan Page 8, Existing Second Floor Plan Page 9, Proposed Second Floor Plan Page 10, Conceptual Renderings Page 11, Street Facing Elevation South (16th Street) Page 12, Street Facing Elevation East (S Main Street) Page 13, Side Elevation Facing North Page 14, Rear Elevation Facing West Page 15-16, Conceptual Renderings Page 17, Materials/Color We look forward to presenting this project to you at an upcoming meeting. We will have additional information at this meeting for your review. Page 105 of 167 If you have any questions or need any supplemental information in advance, please feel free to contact me at 512.819.6012. Thank you for your time. Yours truly, Gary Wang, AIA Wang Architects Page 106 of 167 Design Concepts for Review by HARC: 1256 S Main Street Main Street Residence April 28, 2022 Wang Architects ARCHITECTURE | URBAN DESIGN | MASTERPLANNING Page 107 of 167 16TH STREET S M A I N S T R E E T PROJECT LOCATION A B C 1ASite MapApril 28, 2022 N Page 108 of 167 A B C 1BSite PlanApril 28, 2022 N neighboring properties that encroach setback reference site map 1A Page 109 of 167 2Existing Conditions Existing East front facade along S Main Street Page 110 of 167 Existing Conditions 3 Existing East front facade along S Main Street Page 111 of 167 Existing Conditions 4 Existing East front facade at house along S Main Street Page 112 of 167 PROJECT INFORMATION LOT AREA: ZONING DISTRICT: RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY (RS) OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT EXISTING AND PROPOSED USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENCE AREA: 2751 SF EXISTING GARAGE: 496.5 SF PROPOSED ADDITIONAL AC AREA: 973 SF PROPOSED NEW GARAGE AREA: 495 SF NEW TOTAL AC BUILDING AREA: 3724 SF SIDE SET BACK: 6’ 16TH SREET SETBACK: 15’, 25’ IF GARAGE S. MAIN STREET SETBACK: 20’ REAR SET BACK: 10’ PRIMARY RESIDENCE EXISTING GARAGE GWA NOTE: POOL DOES NOT EXIST GWA NOTE: WOOD DECK DOES NOT EXIST Survey By Other 5 N.T.S. April 28, 2022 N Page 113 of 167 6Existing Ground Floor Plan 3/32” = 1’-0” April 28, 2022 N 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 FRONT PORCH SITTING ROOM DINING ROOM LIVING ROOM STUDY BATH KITCHEN MUD GARAGE 000 SW CORNER OF EXISTING GARAGE 25 ' F R O N T S E T B A C K 10 ' R E A R S E T B A C K 25' SET BACK, IF GARAGE 15' B.L. SET BACK Page 114 of 167 PROPOSED FOORPRINT ADDED 768 SF PROPOSED AIR CONDITIONED SPACES ADDED 392 SF EXISTING GARAGE 496.5 SF PROPOSED GARAGE 495 SF Proposed Ground Floor Plan 7 3/32” = 1’-0” April 28, 2022 N 20 ' F R O N T S E T B A C K 10 ' R E A R S E T B A C K FRONT PORCH 000 SITTING ROOM 000 LIVING ROOM 000 STUDY 000 BATH 000 KITCHEN 000 UP MUD 000 UP DINING ROOM 000 D LAUNDRY 000 W GARAGE 000 TA B L E S A W BA N D S A W TOOL CHESTGEN EXTRA STO. EX T R A S T O . UP PANTRY STORAGE WORKSHOP 000 WORK BENCH OPEN PER OLD SW CORNER OF EXISTING GARAGE LINE OF OVERHANG 25' SET BACK, IF GARAGE 15' B.L. SET BACK Page 115 of 167 Existing Second Floor Plan 8 3/32” = 1’-0” April 28, 2022 N MASTER BEDROOM 000 CLOSET 000 CLOSET 000 FRONTSTAIRS LANDING 000 UPSTAIRS HALL 000 BEDROOM 2 000 CLOSET 000CLOSET 000 CLOSET 000 BEDROOM 3 000 BATH 000 SW CORNER OF EXISTING GARAGE 20 ' F R O N T S E T B A C K 10 ' R E A R S E T B A C K 25' SET BACK, IF GARAGE 15' B.L. SET BACK Page 116 of 167 PROPOSED FOORPRINT ADDED 581 SF PROPOSED AIR CONDITIONED SPACES ADDED 581 SF Proposed Second Floor Plan 9 3/32” = 1’-0” April 28, 2022 N 25' SET BACK, IF GARAGE STUDY 000 CLOSET 000 CLOSET 000 FRONTSTAIRS LANDING 000 UPSTAIRS HALL 000 BACKSTAIRS LANDING 000 BEDROOM 2 000 CLOSET 000 CLOSET 000 BEDROOM 3 000 CLOSET 000 MASTER BEDROOM BATH 000 MASTER BATH DOWN MASTER HALLWAY FLEX ROOM CLOSET MASTER CLOSET CLOSET SW CORNER OF EXISTING GARAGE 20 ' F R O N T S E T B A C K 10 ' R E A R S E T B A C K 25' SET BACK, IF GARAGE 15' B.L. SET BACK Page 117 of 167 Conceptual Renderings 10 N.T.S. April 28, 2022 MIRR R O R E D PROPOSED EXISTING Page 118 of 167 NEW ADDITION Street Front Facing (South) Elevation 1/8” = 1’-0”April 28, 2022 15’ 6” AVERAGE HEIGHT 26’ 6” AVERAGE HEIGHT 12’ AVERAGE HEIGHT 26’ 6” AVERAGE HEIGHT 21’ 6”5’5’ 1’6”2’6” 30’ Page 119 of 167 NEW GARAGE Street (East) Elevation 12 1/8” = 1’-0”April 28, 2022 Page 120 of 167 NEW ADDITION Side (North) Elevation 13 1/8” = 1’-0”April 28, 2022 Page 121 of 167 Rear (West) Elevation 14 1/8” = 1’-0”0DUFK, 2022 30’ 5’ 2’ 6” 5’ 2’ 6” 3’ 2’ WOOD SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING WOOD TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING PAINTED BRICK TO MATCH EXISTING PAINTED BRICK TO MATCH EXISTING WOOD/WOOD CLAD WINDOWS TO MATCH EXISTING Page 122 of 167 Conceptual Rendering 15 N.T.S.April 28, 2022 Page 123 of 167 Conceptual Renderings 16 N.T.S.April 28, 2022 Page 124 of 167 Materials/Color 17 N.T.S. Brick paint: Benjamin Moore Silver Mist Match exterior paint color color pallette Current exterior conditions Trim paint: Benjamin Moore Chantilly Lace Marvin Ultimate Series Windows by Marvin April 28, 2022 Gray shingles Maintain existing roof style Marvin Ultimate Double Hung Windows by Marvin Marvin Ultimate window precedent Page 125 of 167 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:1256 Main St 2016 Survey ID:123825 A City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R043417Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 3/14/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1913 Bungalow Other: Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan Rectangular T-plan Four Square L-plan Irregular Plan* International Ranch No Style Post-war Modern Commercial Style Other: Pueblo Revival Prairie Art Deco Spanish Colonial Craftsman Moderne Gothic Revival Neo-Classical Mission Tudor Revival Beaux Arts Monterey Shingle Folk Victorian Renaissance Revival Romanesque Revival Colonial Revival Exotic Revival Log traditional Italianate Eastlake Greek Revival Second Empire Queen Anne Stylistic Influence(s)* Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s) General Notes:Builder: Belford Lumber Co. (Notes from 2007 Survey: brick painted) High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID:520a ID:434 *Photographs and Preservation Priority have been updated in 2016, and the year built date has also been reviewed. However, the plan and style data are sourced directly from the 2007 survey. 2007 Survey 1984 Survey Current/Historic Name Laura Wileman House ID:123825 A2016 Survey High Medium Low Explain:Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity Latitude:30.630392 Longitude -97.677262 None Selected None Selected Photo direction: West Page 126 of 167 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:1256 Main St 2016 Survey ID:123825 A City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High Additional Photos NorthwestPhoto Direction Page 127 of 167 Page 128 of 167 1256 S Main St. 2022-12-COA Historic & Architectural Review Commission April 28, 2022 Page 129 of 167 2 Item Under Consideration 2022-12-COA –Addition and Garage Setback Modification •Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing fa çade, a 7’6 1/2" encroachment into the required 10 ’- 0”rear setback to allow a detached garage 2' 5 1/2"inches from the rear (west) property line; a 21' encroachment into the required 25' street facing garage street setback to allow a garage 4' from the side street (south) property line at the property located at 1256 S. Main Street, bearing the legal description 0.3306 acres, being part of Block C, Morrow Addition (2022 -12- COA) Page 130 of 167 3 Item Under Consideration •new garage (495 sq. ft.) within the 25' garage street setback and the 10' rear setback •392 sq. ft addition to the first floor •581 sq. ft. 2nd floor addition with dormers to the rear of the primary structure. Page 131 of 167 4 Item Under Consideration Page 132 of 167 5 Item Under Consideration -Addition Page 133 of 167 6 Item Under Consideration –Setbacks & Garage Addition Page 134 of 167 7 Project Location Page 135 of 167 8 Current Context Page 136 of 167 9 Current Context Page 137 of 167 10 1916 & 1925 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (14th St. was later changed to 16th St.) Page 138 of 167 11 1964 Aerial Page 139 of 167 12 1974 Aerial Page 140 of 167 13 1984 HRS Photo Page 141 of 167 14 2016 HRS Photo(s) Page 142 of 167 15 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Page 143 of 167 16 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Page 144 of 167 17 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials South Elevation. Page 145 of 167 18 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials East Elevation. Page 146 of 167 19 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials North Elevation. Page 147 of 167 20 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials West Elevation. Page 148 of 167 21 Proposed Project Drawings/Materials Page 149 of 167 22 Similar Projects Image from application. Page 150 of 167 23 Looming Page 151 of 167 24 Looming Page 152 of 167 25 Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030 Criteria Staff’s Finding 1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies 2. Compliance with applicable design standards of this Code;Partially Complies 3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the most extent practicable; Partially Complies 4. Compliance with the Historic District Design Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District; Partially Complies 5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Complies 6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the applicable historic overlay district;Complies 7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies 8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines and character of the historic overlay district.Not Applicable Page 153 of 167 26 Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030.D Criteria Staff’s Finding a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience;Complies b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without encroaching into the setback; Partially Complies c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject property is located;Complies d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units within the block;Complies e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year;Complies f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the same footprint and encroachment as proposed;Complies Page 154 of 167 27 Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030.D Criteria Staff’s Finding g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the proposed structure is significantly larger than the original;Complies h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original house;Complies i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block;Complies j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;Complies k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or any adjacent structures; and/or Complies l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be preserved.Complies Page 155 of 167 28 Public Notification •42 letters mailed •Number 2 signs posted •To date, staff has received: •1 written comment IN FAVOR •0 written comments OPPOSED Page 156 of 167 29 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the request for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) an addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing fa çade, a 7’6 1/2" encroachment into the required 10 ’-0”rear setback to allow a detached garage 2' 5 1/2"inches from the rear (west) property line; a 21' encroachment into the required 25' street facing garage street setback to allow a garage 4' from the side street (south) property line at the property located at 1256 S. Main Street, bearing the legal description 0.3306 acres, being part of Block C, Morrow Addition (2022 -12-COA). Page 157 of 167 30 HARC Motion –2022-12-COA •Approve (as presented by the applicant) •Deny (as presented by the applicant) •Approve with conditions •Postpone Page 158 of 167 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review April 28, 2022 S UB J E C T: Dis cus s ion and pos s ible ac tion to appoint a subcommittee of the HAR C for review of projects - Nat Waggoner, As s t. P lanning Dir. - Long R ange IT E M S UMMARY: T he HAR C Bylaws (attached) provide that the His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion has the express authority to delegate review of spec ific projects (as defined by majority vote of the C ommis s ion) to a S ubcommittee of the C ommis s ion composed of at least three members . In c onsideration of forming a S ubc ommittee, s taff recommends that members of the s ubc ommittee meet at least 1 time prior to any regularly s cheduled meeting of the HAR C to review the findings of s taff and confirm if additional information or analysis is needed for the ac tion of the full C ommission. At this meeting, C ity staff is s eeking feedback from the full C ommission on the pos s ible formation of a s ubc ommittee, s pecific ally, does the HAR C see the formation of the s ubc ommittee as helpful to the process? If the C ommission desires to form a S ubc ommittee wat does the full C ommis s ion s ee as the roles and res ponsibilities of the subcommittee? F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Nathaniel Waggoner AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Exhibit 1 – HARC Bylaws Exhibit Page 159 of 167 Page 160 of 167 Page 161 of 167 Page 162 of 167 Page 163 of 167 Page 164 of 167 Page 165 of 167 Page 166 of 167 Page 167 of 167